Goldman Sachs now reckons that oil could take out the 2008 record of $147
Goldman Sachs’s forecast that oil could surpass its 2008 nominal record prompts debate over how current geopolitical tensions—especially U.S. military action against Iran and disruptions to shipping in Asia—might drive a sustained price shock rather than a brief spike. Commenters argue over whether recent U.S. naval conduct constitutes a war crime, what obligations militaries have to rescue enemy survivors at sea, and how such actions reshape global perceptions of the U.S. They also weigh who benefits and who loses from higher oil prices, with some contending that prolonged increases would hurt the U.S. consumer and economy more than China, despite talk of using energy costs as strategic leverage.
Oil price levels and real terms
- Multiple comments adjust the 2008 high:
- $147/bbl in 2008 ≈ $218/bbl in today’s US dollars.
- In euros, that 2008 price ≈ €140 today, or about $160, illustrating that “records” depend on currency.
- Some argue long‑term value comparisons are inherently fuzzy because purchasing power and buyer groups change over time.
Forecasts and market structure
- Skepticism toward Goldman Sachs and other banks’ oil forecasts:
- Claims they have been consistently off and may be “sandbagging” or front‑running clients.
- Counterpoint: bank forecasts do not differ much from peers; refining crack spreads suggest higher prices but industry views are not uniform.
- One commenter relays industry anecdotes: Southeast Asia could face acute shortages for months even if conflict ended soon, with the US more insulated on supply but not on price.
Gasoline prices, inflation, and US politics
- Observations that US gasoline has been around $3.50/gal on average both in 2008 and now, implying surprising nominal stability over ~20 years.
- Others stress people react to recent hikes, not long‑term averages; even modest increases feel painful.
- Claim that whenever US retail gas exceeds ~$4/gal, Congress becomes vulnerable to partisan turnover, regardless of which party is in power.
Iran conflict, naval warfare, and war crimes debate
- Large sub‑thread on the US sinking an Iranian warship:
- One side: the ship was unarmed, on exercises, its status was known, and survivors were allegedly not aided; this is framed as a textbook war crime under Geneva obligations to rescue shipwrecked combatants.
- Opposing view: a flagged enemy warship in wartime is always a lawful target, armed or not; submarines lack practical ability and are not strictly required to conduct rescues, especially if this creates risk; notifying or relying on other SAR assets can satisfy legal duties.
- Several note that submarine practice since WWII and precedents like the Laconia incident and the San Remo Manual create gray areas; legally “hard to pin down,” ethically “abhorrent” to some.
Geopolitics: US, China, and oil
- Some suggest the US benefits from high oil prices to pressure China; others counter that high prices hurt the US more, while China is rapidly electrifying and leans on coal and domestic renewables.
- Debate over whether current US policy reflects strategic “4D chess,” Israeli influence, or impulsive decision‑making, with many leaning toward incompetence rather than master planning.
Macroeconomic and distributional impacts
- Rough rule of thumb offered: each 1¢ increase in US gasoline, sustained for a year, removes about $1B from other consumer spending.
- Higher prices are seen as transferring wealth from general consumers to oil producers, described cynically as “making America feel poor again.”